Aquaculture in ScotlandAquaculture in Scotland the potential effects of the the potential effects of the Water framework DirectiveWater framework Directive

Peter Holmes Marine Science Manager Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA)

Responsible for licensing discharge from Fin

Fish Farms by: Controlling the position of farm in relation to the depth,

flushing rates and proximity to other farms or sensitive sites

Consenting the farm size in terms of peak biomass Consenting the use of chemicals such as drugs,

anti-parasitics, anti-fouling treatment

SEPA is only consulted on the siting of shellfish farms as they are not artificially fed their discharge is considered “natural”

Existing data/monitoring requirements for Cage Farms

Monitoring Benthos self monitoring and audit

Modelling of organic deposition

Hydrographic data and audit

Modelling of nutrient load

Modelling of infeed treatment dispersion and audit

Audit of all chemicals and their fate

Details of SEPA’s Fish Farm Manual are on SEPA’s Web Site

SCOTLAND

Federation of Scottish Aquaculture Producers, 2004

Atlantic Salmon Aquaculture

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Tonn

es UK

Norway

Source: FAO

Fin Fish Farms in Scotland

Characterisation - Risk Assessment

(Pressures & Impacts) Assess the degree of risk of a water body failing

good status For Fish Farms this was done using Scottish

Government Locational Guidelines And SEPA’s coastal classification scheme(not WFD

compliant) If farms were in Guideline Category 1 or were

designated C or D in SEPA’s classification system then they were considered at risk with moderate confidence and therefore subject to Operational Monitoring

Scottish Government Locational Guidelines

Based on sensitivity of sea area in terms of available volume, depth, flushing rate etc

Sensitivity of any Natural History designation

Location of existing farms

Concerns over wild salmon and sea trout populations

Categories in the Locational Guidelines

CATEGORY 1 - No new or expanded farms except in exceptional circumstances

CATEGORY 2 - Limited scope for new sites some room for expansion of existing sites especially where this would reduce environmental effect.

CATEGORY 3 - Where some scope for expansion if all environmental requirements can be met.

Category 1Areas

Creating Water Bodies

Critical that it is remembered these are the management units

They must be of one type

Their size will depend on the pressure they are under

Water Bodies for North West Scotland

Water Bodies and Types

NEA6

NEA7NEA1

NEA1

Typology

Scotland does not have every NE Atlantic Group Type but shares Type NEA7 Fjord/Sealoch with Norway.

Suitable for Intercalibration especially as pressure from fish farming similar

Monitoring of 3 types -Surveillance

-Operational

-Investigative

Surveillance Monitoring

The surveillance monitoring to look at:

A range of sites including impacted ones Validate risk assessment Trends in natural or man induced changes

Sufficient surveillance sites are required to allow an assessment of the overall surface water status.

Thinking behind design of the Scottish Surveillance Monitoring Programme

One site in each of eight coastal sediment transport cells

One site within in each type

Monitoring should cover 5% of water bodies (=25 sites)

all relevant quality elements to be sampled at all sites

Every 3 years for invertebrates and macroalgae

Every 3 years sampling for fish in transitional waters

bi-annual, quarterly or monthly sampling for phytoplankton

bi-annual, quarterly or monthly sampling for water quality

Every six years for hydromorphology

Surveillance Monitoring

Must monitor all Quality Elements

25 surveillance sites, but no lagoon sites identified yet.

8 are in water bodies containing fish farms

Operational Monitoring

The operational monitoring network derived from the risk assessment process in the first instance.

Monitoring Frequency Nationally decided but should be at least as frequent as that given in the Directive

Operational Monitoring

Monitor only those quality elements that are at risk

Investigative Monitoring

Where reasons for exceedances are not known

To examine impacts of accidental pollution

Where operational monitoring has not been put in place

Considering the effect of the WFD an ICES Mariculture Committee

concluded at a workshop in Spain 2003 that:

“Specifically, fish farms will probably be assessed as potentially affecting the quality of the benthic fauna, the phytoplankton and angiosperm communities, and also hydrochemical conditions such as nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations.”

I would agree but add “Specific Pollutants”

CHEMICAL MONITORING

Antibiotics, antiparasitics,

antifouling agents are all

“Specific Pollutants”

requiring member state

control with state derived

standards.

Regulation

If any water body fails to reach at least Good Status then a Programme of Measures must be brought in to improve the quality of that water body by 2015

Programme of Measures is subject to national regulation but must be reported through River Basin Management Plan

River Basin Plans must allow participation and consultation with stakeholders such as Aquaculture Industry

WFD Summary for Aquaculture

Plus Clear Universally

applied quality standard and classification

Ensure that water quality in areas that are used for aquaculture are of high quality

Allows wide consultation and consideration of socio-economics

Minus More thorough auditing

of the industry in areas where currently there is little attention

Poor results will be open to public scrutiny

Environmental quality compared with “natural state” not just a local control site

Summary

I believe that for Scotland that the monitoring will be more comprehensive in scope but may be less intensive at any one farm.

Shellfish farming will have to be monitored for the first time by SEPA

The effective regulation will be of a similar nature to the present so the farmer with good environmental credentials has nothing to fear.

For Norway?For Norway?